John Rambo's Alignment?

[BlueWitch]

they put him in the new MK11 game, and I got to really thinking about this! XD

So for those of you who don't know, "Rambo" is Sylvester Stallone's character in the aptly named movies.
He's a retired Soldier with a devastating Kill Count. But he keeps being re-commissioned because of his skills.

But even so, Rambo, like I said, has one heck of a kill count! And some of them were underhanded/brutal.

Could someone like John Rambo still count as "Lawful Good?"
Could a Paladin be like this? lmao

[Feldar]

I think neutral good.

[denthor]

Military service is lawful. He is good if only the enemy is targeted and a straight fighter type.

However under D&D rules if he is like a ranger type. His favored enemy is human. Under 3.x rules he is some form of evil. Most likely Le.
If he is not a ranger type. Rouge then LN possible Nuetral.

If he is barbarian class then ng/neutral more brutal society.

Who can even begin with the alignment system of 5e. Where outrageous acts are considered lg.

Just so your aware Han Solo is classic Chaotic Nuetral riding the good line.

[Venger]

Rangers whose FE type is human are no longer required to be Evil in 3.5.

[hamishspence]

It's only in 3.0 that human rangers with humans as their favoured enemies, had to be Evil. In 3.5 they can be of any alignment, regardless of their choice of Favoured Enemy.

EDIT; swordsaged.

[Kish]

It's worth noting that the original plan was that Rambo would not survive the first movie--that he was too violent, too out of control, and even while he could be sympathized with, unambiguously not a positive force.

[Saintheart]

It's worth noting that the original plan was that Rambo would not survive the first movie--that he was too violent, too out of control, and even while he could be sympathized with, unambiguously not a positive force.

Well ... sorta.

First Blood is an adaptation of the David Morrell novel of the same name, and the two characters are very different on Morrell's own commentary. Rambo of the novel is very much an ambiguous character; the book much more tells the story of two competing protagonists from different generations (Rambo and Teasle) with Sam Trautman really standing in as, quite literally, 'Uncle Sam', the system that created Rambo. Morrell has said the characterisation of Rambo that comes closest to the one he imagined in his novel was the one on screen in Rambo IV - the seriously damaged veteran who is quite literally still living in the Far East, both in his mind and body, the guy who doesn't have a pretty serrated knife but just a sharpened bit of curved iron as his weapon of choice. Rambo in the novel kills a good two dozen people, civilians and military, before it's over. In the film, the only person for whose death Rambo can be said to have been responsible is the guy leaning out of the helicopter trying to shoot him off a cliff wall, and then only because the helicopter veered when Rambo threw a rock at it. Even in that iconic scene where Rambo takes down four or five deputies in the woods during a thunderstorm, he explicitly does not kill a single one of them and points it out specifically to Teasle, giving the sheriff one last chance to let it go.

In the book, Trautman outright blows Rambo's head off with a shotgun, because he'd gone out of control. I hesitate to say the analogy is of putting down Lassie, but that's basically the line that's taken. In the movie, the original (and deleted) ending was that Rambo all but kills himself in his despair and grief, begging Trautman to kill him first and then pulling Trautman's drawn gun into himself and setting off the trigger. That ending didn't go down well with test audiences, though; I guess they'd had enough of Vietnam veterans killing themselves in The Deer Hunter and had been cheering for Rambo the whole way through. As said, the film's a lot more unambiguous on how Rambo is the victim, at least at first; the novel isn't so heavy-handed on that score. That probably played a large part in why that ending was unsatisfactory as well.

As it is, I think for the film as a separate work of narrative, it was an improvement that Rambo survives and goes into custody. The catharsis for me is in Rambo's emotional breakdown in describing what happened to him in Vietnam, and indeed in Richard Crenna's beautifully underplayed restraint in reacting to him. It's one of the best scenes Stallone ever played. Particularly nice is the final shot of the film, where Trautman and Rambo are walking side by side. They both hear some noise offscreen and turn their heads to the right at the same time, and the film freezes on that final frame - as if they were both on parade and had followed an order of 'eyes right', as takes place when such troops are honouring a visiting dignitary; in this way, they're honouring the audience.

[Kish]

Think you mean Old Yeller.

[Saintheart]

YOU REMEMBER THE MOVIE YOUR WAY, I'LL REMEMBER IT MINE :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Gruftzwerg]

While in his former army time (before First Blood) he was L-N.
In the first movie he than turned C-N and died at the end. End of story. There is only 1 Rambo! ;)

[Conradine]

I would say that a person who risks his life to spare people who beaten, insulted and tried to kill him, cannot be anything else than Good aligned.
Rambo in the film did absolutely nothing evil or wrong. They arrested him for no reason, beaten him, tortured him with cold water and he react ( by fleeing, not by hurting them ) only when they threaten to cut him with a razor.
And still he doesn't kill them, even when given plenty of opportunities.

Damn, if Rambo was a Paladin, I would not make him fall. Which is an awful lot for me.

[Psyren]

The problem with Rambo is that a big part of his character is the fact that he suffers from acute and (at least initially) untreated PTSD. I don't think the alignment system is equipped to handle complex mental illnesses of this nature.

But more generally, statting out MK11 characters in 3.P is a project I had always wanted to undertake, so I may make a separate thread for that :smallsmile:

[KorvinStarmast]

The problem with Rambo is that a big part of his character is the fact that he suffers from acute and (at least initially) untreated PTSD. I don't think the alignment system is equipped to handle complex mental illnesses of this nature. This.
The best I can manufcture for him is a CG-NG; he could have killed so many of them, but didn't. But he sure breaks a lot of stuff.
As shown in the film, he is tactically astute, but he's in many ways internally adrift.
The visit in the beginning to his old friend Dexter's home, and the familly letting him know his old friend had died, underscores the internal chaos that lurks beneath the surface.

[SpyOne]

I am given to understand that something that is in the movie if you know to look for it is made much clearer in the book: that John Rambo has been looking up guys he served with, and not only are they all dead, they all died of cancer.

Rambo's alignment ...

I have not read the book but have seen people who have discussing it, and one point was that as the situation escalates Rambo becomes increasinly entrenched while the sheriff increasingly doubts his own position, realizing that he had already been angry about something else when he met Rambo.
But the entire point was to leave the reader doubting which had been the good guy, "if any".

[Saintheart]

I am given to understand that something that is in the movie if you know to look for it is made much clearer in the book: that John Rambo has been looking up guys he served with, and not only are they all dead, they all died of cancer.

That's pretty much the other way round, if at all. In the book Rambo hasn't been looking anyone up, he's just been drifting aimlessly. It's only in the movie that they suggest Rambo has been looking up the men he served with. I have the book and I don't remember a single mention of deaths from cancer at all.



I have not read the book but have seen people who have discussing it, and one point was that as the situation escalates Rambo becomes increasinly entrenched while the sheriff increasingly doubts his own position, realizing that he had already been angry about something else when he met Rambo.
But the entire point was to leave the reader doubting which had been the good guy, "if any".

This is true. The book was written more as a literal conflict between generations. The sheriff, Teasle, was a Korean War veteran, and had been awarded the DSC for his actions during the Battle of the Choisin Reservoir, one of the most brutal conflicts of the war. The DSC is second only in importance to the Congressional Medal of Honour, which Rambo had. The idea was that they were from different generations but just couldn't understand one another; some Korean War veterans felt themselves to have been participants in a 'forgotten war' since the Korean War ended relatively quickly despite being a bitterly-contested conflict. Teasle's life was falling apart because his wife had left him. Rambo had been drifting but had been treated similarly in half a dozen towns and decided when Teasle first pulled out of the traffic and drove toward him that this time he wouldn't be pushed. At one point in the novel Rambo has a conversation with himself about why exactly he'd gone commando on everyone, and he justifies it to himself that while part of it was because it was his right to go where he wanted, he secretly wanted to show his stuff to the cop.

[illyahr]

The problem with Rambo is that a big part of his character is the fact that he suffers from acute and (at least initially) untreated PTSD. I don't think the alignment system is equipped to handle complex mental illnesses of this nature.

As a veteran and someone who actually has PTSD: this. Rambo is TN/NG (depending on media) but his mental issues add a component that requires supplementary mechanics.

[Peelee]

they put him in the new MK11 game, and I got to really thinking about this! XD

So for those of you who don't know, "Rambo" is Sylvester Stallone's character in the aptly named movies.
He's a retired Soldier with a devastating Kill Count. But he keeps being re-commissioned because of his skills.

But even so, Rambo, like I said, has one heck of a kill count! And some of them were underhanded/brutal.

Could someone like John Rambo still count as "Lawful Good?"
Could a Paladin be like this? lmao

To answer the question in bold... depends on how much of the franchise you consider. I, for example, prefer to keep it confined to just the first movie (and, even further than that, to the original deleted ending).

Here's the thing. First Blood is cinema at its finest. First Blood is art. The rest of the Rambo movies are action flicks. Some of them even try to shoehorn in a message, but they're a guy mowing down other guys. But First Blood is different. John Rambo kept retreating. Nearly the entire movie, Rambo has one stance - he doesn't want to fight, he doesn't want to engage, he wants to be left alone and leave them alone. Whenever possible, he tries to disengage. He tries to de-escalate. You know how many people die in First Blood? One. And he died because of his own malice. Hell, just check out the dialogue:

Col. Trautman: If you send your people in there after him they'll get killed.
Sheriff Teasle: [getting more irritated] You know, we're just a small, hick-town sheriff's department, Colonel, but we're expected to do our duty just like our heroes in the Special Forces.
Trautman: In Special Forces we teach our people to stay alive in the line of duty.
Teasle: No ****, I never thought of that.
Trautman: You want a war you can't win?
Teasle: Are you tellin' me that 200 of our men against your boy is a no-win situation for us?
Trautman: You send that many, don't forget one thing.
Teasle: What?
Trautman: A good supply of body-bags.

Sheriff Teasle: He was just another drifter who broke the law!
Col. Trautman: Vagrancy, wasn't it? That's gonna look real good on his gravestone in Arlington: Here lies John Rambo, winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, survivor of countless incursions behind enemy lines. Killed for vagrancy in Jerkwater, USA.
Teasle: Now don't give me any of that crap, Trautman. Do you think Rambo was the only guy who had a tough time in Vietnam? He killed a police officer for Christ's sake!
Trautman: You're goddamn lucky he didn't kill all of you.

Col. Trautman: I don't think you understand. I didn't come to rescue Rambo from you. I came here to rescue you from him.
Sheriff Teasle: [clearly taken aback by Trautman's words] Well, we all appreciate your concern Colonel, I will try to be extra careful!
Col. Trautman: You picked the wrong man to push.
Sheriff Teasle: [walking back into the tent] No, Trautman, he picked the wrong man!
Col. Trautman: [following him in] That boy's a heart attack! He may be the best the Special Forces ever produced. Now whatever you're planning to throw at him here, he's been through a whole lot worse, in a lot worse places that this. I'm just amazed he allowed any of your posse to live.
Teasle: Is that right?
Trautman: Strictly speaking, he slipped up. You're lucky to be breathing.
That is one part where Trautman is wrong. They're not lucky, Rambo didn't slip up. Rambo himself shows us this:

Rambo: There's one man dead. It's not my fault. I don't want any more hurt.
Sheriff Teasle: [on top of a cliff above Rambo] Freeze, or I'll blow your head off.
Rambo: [backing away] But I didn't do anything.
Teasle: FIRE!

John Rambo: I could have killed 'em all, I could kill you. In town you're the law, out here it's me. Don't push it. Don't push it or I'll give you a war you won't believe. Let it go. Let it go.
Rambo didn't kill them because Rambo didn't want to kill them. Rambo wanted to save them from themselves. They kept pushing and kept pushing, and he kept trying to de-escalate. He kept trying to give them an out.

If that's not Lawful Good, I don't know what is.

[Saintheart]

Rambo didn't kill them because Rambo didn't want to kill them. Rambo wanted to save them from themselves. They kept pushing and kept pushing, and he kept trying to de-escalate. He kept trying to give them an out.

If that's not Lawful Good, I don't know what is.

But in the last third of the film, he arguably changes alignment ... or maybe doesn't follow his code for a while. He'd been forced into that cave, the cut-lunch commandos from the National Guard had sealed him inside, but he found a way out.

He could have just kept retreating at that point, but he didn't: he shifted to offensive operations. He wasn't retreating when he commandeered an Army truck, drove it back into Jerkwater, USA, hauled out the M-60, blew up the service station, and then went hunting Teasle at the police station. He only stops when Trautman confronts him and tells him it's a suicide mission.

(And yes: First Blood is a great film, one of the best. There's a reason nobody remembers Richard Crenna for anything other than Colonel Trautman. Remember that scene right after the cave? Where the National Guard guys are celebrating over the caved-in mine? Remember that one shot where Trautman's looking over the scene, and there's this knowing look on his face, like he's scenting the air?)

[Gruftzwerg]

...

Rambo didn't kill them because Rambo didn't want to kill them. Rambo wanted to save them from themselves. They kept pushing and kept pushing, and he kept trying to de-escalate. He kept trying to give them an out.

If that's not Lawful Good, I don't know what is.

I agree with all your point (including that only first blood directors cut is the only true ending..^^), but not with your conclusion.

Lawful Good would have been getting imprisoned and waiting for the trial to solve the situation within the laws (even if the laws or their henchmen "the sheriff" is corrupt).

But what Rambo did was Chaotic Neutral, maybe Chaotic Good if you want to stretch it. He was Lawful in his time of duty in the army while executing commands given to him, but that is not the chase in the movie.

[Peelee]

But in the last third of the film, he arguably changes alignment ... or maybe doesn't follow his code for a while. He'd been forced into that cave, the cut-lunch commandos from the National Guard had sealed him inside, but he found a way out.

He could have just kept retreating at that point, but he didn't: he shifted to offensive operations. He wasn't retreating when he commandeered an Army truck, drove it back into Jerkwater, USA, hauled out the M-60, blew up the service station, and then went hunting Teasle at the police station. He only stops when Trautman confronts him and tells him it's a suicide mission.

(And yes: First Blood is a great film, one of the best. There's a reason nobody remembers Richard Crenna for anything other than Colonel Trautman. Remember that scene right after the cave? Where the National Guard guys are celebrating over the caved-in mine? Remember that one shot where Trautman's looking over the scene, and there's this knowing look on his face, like he's scenting the air?)

He kept offering them the chance to retreat, and calling in the National Guard was them telling him that they would never take it. Rambo kept trying when he believed it was viable to try, even at great personal detriment. He honestly thought he could show them how futile it was to go against him, how he could have done so much, and how at every possible chance he refused to. They didn't care. They wanted his head and would not stop until they had it. I would argue that fighting back after that does not constitute a change in alignment, but merely acceptance of their refusal.

Teasle I would hesitantly call Neutral Evil, but that one is a bit harder. He doesn't go off the deep end until after his friend dies, and extreme emotional disturbance is hard to categorize on an alignment plane.

Also, changing the ending to the one it was released with not only did John Rambo dirty, it also robbed Trautman as well. That was one hell of an ending. Audiences wanted a happier one, though. If only they hadn't screened it for the audiences.

[Gruftzwerg]

(And yes: First Blood is a great film, one of the best. There's a reason nobody remembers Richard Crenna for anything other than Colonel Trautman. Remember that scene right after the cave? Where the National Guard guys are celebrating over the caved-in mine? Remember that one shot where Trautman's looking over the scene, and there's this knowing look on his face, like he's scenting the air?)

<3
I love that scene. You can really see how Trautman is observing the area/situation and how he comes to the conclusion: "Nope, didn't happen. He's still alive."

[Peelee]

I agree with all your point (including that only first blood directors cut is the only true ending..^^), but not with your conclusion.

Lawful Good would have been getting imprisoned and waiting for the trial to solve the situation within the laws (even if the laws or their henchmen "the sheriff" is corrupt).

But what Rambo did was Chaotic Neutral, maybe Chaotic Good if you want to stretch it. He was Lawful in his time of duty in the army while executing commands given to him, but that is not the chase in the movie.

Similar to how being emotionally compromised is difficult to chart on the Alignment scale, so too is PTSD. Rambo was having some harsh flashbacks in the jail, and legitimately feared for his life (and likely had much less control over his actions than the rest of the movie). Even then, though, he restrained himself enough to not kill them, which IMO speaks volumes about his character.

[Saintheart]

Similar to how being emotionally compromised is difficult to chart on the Alignment scale, so too is PTSD. Rambo was having some harsh flashbacks in the jail, and legitimately feared for his life (and likely had much less control over his actions than the rest of the movie). Even then, though, he restrained himself enough to not kill them, which IMO speaks volumes about his character.

No kidding. In the novel Rambo not only frees himself, he gets hold of the razor and opens one of the officers' stomachs with it.

[Gruftzwerg]

Similar to how being emotionally compromised is difficult to chart on the Alignment scale, so too is PTSD. Rambo was having some harsh flashbacks in the jail, and legitimately feared for his life (and likely had much less control over his actions than the rest of the movie). Even then, though, he restrained himself enough to not kill them, which IMO speaks volumes about his character.

What you are talking about it the good-evil axis and not the lawful-chaotic axis. Learn to differentiate them.

good doesn't always correspond to lawful

You can argue that he is Chaotic Good and not Chaotic Neutral. Maybe even go so far as saying he is N/G or true N, but never Lawful (after his duty in the army).

[Peelee]

No kidding. In the novel Rambo not only frees himself, he gets hold of the razor and opens one of the officer's stomachs with it.

I should really read that at some point.

Also, regarding his turn from retreating to attacking, I see that as, if anything, a change on the Good/Evil more than a change on the Law/Chaos. Everything Rambo does after he escapes is deliberate. His training kicks in, he goes by his training, he sticks to his code. Once he takes on the attack, that doesn't change. It's not a question of procedure. He still has the same code he had before. It's just that now, they didn't take any of his offers to end it, so he is going to force it to an ending. I'd still peg him as Lawful, but maybe turn to Lawful Neutral for that. And with the speech at the end showing exactly what he was working with, I'm still inclined to call it Lawful Good in a world that was incompatible with him.

What you are talking about it the good-evil axis and not the lawful-chaotic axis. Learn to differentiate them.

good doesn't always correspond to lawful

You can argue that he is Chaotic Good and not Chaotic Neutral. Maybe even go so far as saying he is N/G or true N, but never Lawful (after his duty in the army).

Not gonna lie, I chuckled when I hit the Post button and saw that while I was writing all that, you had already touched on exactly what I decided to expound on.:smallwink:

ETA: Actually, I'd like to explore your justification for him being Chaotic. He's the same person he was in the military, how do you see the shift from Lawful to Chaotic just because he is no longer active duty? What is different about who he was under the military and who he was as a civilian on the Law/Chaos axis?

[Saintheart]

Also, changing the ending to the one it was released with not only did John Rambo dirty, it also robbed Trautman as well. That was one hell of an ending. Audiences wanted a happier one, though. If only they hadn't screened it for the audiences.

Hey look, I really would like to politely debate this one and it might come down to just individual preferences at the end of the day, but I've seen both versions and I do like the one that went out to audiences better than the alternative, deleted ending.

My rationale's this: if the point of a film is a character changing, then what happens to John Rambo affirms life and redemption. The entire film, Rambo has been running from something. Not in a cowardly fashion, but his vagrancy is classic Seneca: "the problem is that no matter where you travel, your troubles go with you". That scene at the start of the film, where he goes to Delmar Berry's house and finds that Delmar's died years ago, is not only there to humanise Rambo (imagine the movie without it, and Rambo's breakdown at the end sort of comes out of nowhere) but also to mark the beginning of Rambo's crucible: until that moment, he's been holding out some hope of remembering good times or connecting with someone from his past. He's been hoping to find some support for his refusal to confront the past. And what he's confronted with is death: Delmar died, consumed by a cancer derived from the war (we might say, consumed by the war itself). Rambo's choice is to let the past go, and he refuses - he restrains the grief and anger and takes them with him into Teasle's town.

Trautman contacts Rambo over the radio, and the whole feel of the scene is almost as if Rambo's been transported into the past for a while; I frequently hallucinate that there are phantom gunshots or helicopter blades whirring almost subliminally in the background of that scene. But this is the past inverted: Trautman uses Rambo's, and his own, callsign to try and convince him to come out of the past, that the war's over, that it's time to move on. And again Rambo refuses that call.

It's only the last time, when he's surrounded in the police station (and notice how Trautman sneaks up on him, unseen, appearing out of nowhere just like he did with his first appearance with Teasle) that Rambo finally confronts the past, lets the memories out, allows his grief to overwhelm him, allows all the insults that have been rained on him to come out.


Trautman : You did everything to make this private war happen. You've done enough damage. This mission is over, Rambo. Do you understand me? This mission is over! Look at them out there! Look at them! If you won't end this now, they will kill you. Is that what you want? It's over Johnny. It's over!
Rambo : Nothing is over! Nothing! You just don't turn it off! It wasn't my war! You asked me, I didn't ask you! And I did what I had to do to win! But somebody wouldn't let us win! And I come back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting. Calling me baby killer and all kinds of vile crap! Who are they to protest me, huh? Who are they? Unless they've been me and been there and know what the hell they're yelling about!
Trautman : It was a bad time for everyone, Rambo. It's all in the past now.
Rambo : For *you*! For me civilian life is nothing! In the field we had a code of honor, you watch my back, I watch yours. Back here there's nothing!
Trautman : You're the last of an elite group, don't end it like this.
Rambo : Back there I could fly a gunship, I could drive a tank, I was in charge of million dollar equipment, back here I can't even hold a job *parking cars*!

And then there's the great line, the one which is so hard to hear behind Stallone's accent and tears, the one that I suspect a lot of Vietnam veterans knew or wanted to hear:


Rambo : I can't get it out of my head. A dream of seven years. Everyday I have this. And sometimes I wake up and I don't know where I am. I don't talk to anybody. Sometimes a day - a week. I can't put it out of my mind.

For the first time in the film he asks for help, literally puts his hand out to Trautman and finally receives a sympathetic embrace from the older man (who's on the verge of tears himself looking at what's happened to 'his boy').

That's where Rambo, the killing machine, dies. That's where his character changes. His physical death at that point would be superfluous, he has already changed. And when he emerges from the police station, Trautman leading him, he's in a new, long blue coat, as if made new.

Two other points I'd cite either in support or commentary:

(1) Insofar as films have a social purpose, insofar as people identify with film characters and behave like them unconsciously, I think there was a lot more to be said for the preservation of Vietnam victims' lives in the message that if they talk to someone about what happened, get some actual treatment, there is a way out at the end that doesn't end with a bullet. But I don't say this should be the reason to have the ending we got, I still hold it works great with that ending anyway.

(2) According to Ted Kotcheff (https://ew.com/movies/2017/04/07/first-blood-rambo-dead-ending-kirk-douglas/) who directed the film, it was Stallone who convinced him - convinced him, didn't demand it - that the ending should be changed:


One thing about Sylvester: He has a populist sense. He knows what audiences like to see, and what they don’t like to see. I’ve never had that. [Laughs] We came around to do the ending. He’s surrounded by the army, and by the police. He’s in the police station. The Colonel comes in there to put him out of his misery. [Rambo] says, “I know you have a gun underneath your jacket there. You created me. Now, you have to kill me.” And he pulls out the gun. But he can’t do it, of course. But Rambo reaches out, presses the trigger, and blows himself away. The whole scene was awfully moving. He kills himself!

We shot it. It was incredibly moving, after all we’d been through. Sylvester got up and said, “Ted, can I talk to you for a second?” He said, “You know, Ted, we put this character through so much. The police abuse him. He’s pursued endlessly. Dogs are sent after him. He jumps off cliffs. He runs through freezing water. He’s shot in the arm and he has to sew it up himself. All this, and now we’re gonna kill him?”

What he said had been simmering in my mind slightly for some time, really. The quintessential American town Rambo finds himself in was emblematic of the whole United States. He’s being treated by an enemy, so he returns the failure and wrecks the whole town. I thought, to then have him kill himself means the enemy would have won, that town would have killed him. By this time, the audience had gotten the message. Did they need me to excessively pile it on?

I said, “Sylvester has a point.” Something popped into my head right away. I said, “I know exactly how to do it.” We cut away from this scene, just before [the Colonel] pulls the gun out. They come out of the police station. They start to walk down the steps. I’ll pan over to the ambulance, and see the Sheriff being loaded into the ambulance. He’s been shot, but not killed. We go back to Sylvester – all one shot! – he’s so happy he didn’t kill him. The camera pans over, follows them as they go onto the street. The whole townspeople are there. They’ll look at him, he’ll look at them. They’ll end up on a jeep and drive off. All one long camera shot. And Sylvester loved it! So, I said, “Okay, guys!” I lined it all up.

And they had test screenings with both endings anyway, and the results affirmed both Stallone's instinct and Kotcheff's intution: audiences wanted the one where Rambo lives. Although even Kotcheff is prosaic about it:


Unhappy endings are intellectual endings. But happy endings are popular endings. To which I might add, for Andy Vajna and Mario Kassar, who produced three Rambo sequels: Profitable endings, too! ... You have to go with your intuitions in making a film sometimes. That thing had been niggling at me in the back of my head: The town killed him. The evil Sheriff killed him. All those people that symbolized America had killed him. They were the evil people who did this.


All of that being said: why do you say the 'Rambo dies' ending works better?

[Peelee]

Hey look, I really would like to politely debate this one and it might come down to just individual preferences at the end of the day, but I've seen both versions and I do like the one that went out to audiences better than the alternative, deleted ending.

My rationale's this: if the point of a film is a character changing, then what happens to John Rambo affirms life and redemption. The entire film, Rambo has been running from something. Not in a cowardly fashion, but his vagrancy is classic Seneca: "the problem is that no matter where you travel, your troubles go with you". That scene at the start of the film, where he goes to Delmar Berry's house and finds that Delmar's died years ago, is not only there to humanise Rambo (imagine the movie without it, and Rambo's breakdown at the end sort of comes out of nowhere) but also to mark the beginning of Rambo's crucible: until that moment, he's been holding out some hope of remembering good times or connecting with someone from his past. He's been hoping to find some support for his refusal to confront the past. And what he's confronted with is death: Delmar died, consumed by a cancer derived from the war (we might say, consumed by the war itself). Rambo's choice is to let the past go, and he refuses - he restrains the grief and anger and takes them with him into Teasle's town.

Trautman contacts Rambo over the radio, and the whole feel of the scene is almost as if Rambo's been transported into the past for a while; I frequently hallucinate that there are phantom gunshots or helicopter blades whirring almost subliminally in the background of that scene. But this is the past inverted: Trautman uses Rambo's, and his own, callsign to try and convince him to come out of the past, that the war's over, that it's time to move on. And again Rambo refuses that call.

It's only the last time, when he's surrounded in the police station (and notice how Trautman sneaks up on him, unseen, appearing out of nowhere just like he did with his first appearance with Teasle) that Rambo finally confronts the past, lets the memories out, allows his grief to overwhelm him, allows all the insults that have been rained on him to come out.



And then there's the great line, the one which is so hard to hear behind Stallone's accent and tears, the one that I suspect a lot of Vietnam veterans knew or wanted to hear:



For the first time in the film he asks for help, literally puts his hand out to Trautman and finally receives a sympathetic embrace from the older man (who's on the verge of tears himself looking at what's happened to 'his boy').

That's where Rambo, the killing machine, dies. That's where his character changes. His physical death at that point would be superfluous, he has already changed. And when he emerges from the police station, Trautman leading him, he's in a new, long blue coat, as if made new.

Two other points I'd cite either in support or commentary:

(1) Insofar as films have a social purpose, insofar as people identify with film characters and behave like them unconsciously, I think there was a lot more to be said for the preservation of Vietnam victims' lives in the message that if they talk to someone about what happened, get some actual treatment, there is a way out at the end that doesn't end with a bullet. But I don't say this should be the reason to have the ending we got, I still hold it works great with that ending anyway.

(2) According to Ted Kotcheff (https://ew.com/movies/2017/04/07/first-blood-rambo-dead-ending-kirk-douglas/) who directed the film, it was Stallone who convinced him - convinced him, didn't demand it - that the ending should be changed:



And they had test screenings with both endings anyway, and the results affirmed both Stallone's instinct and Kotcheff's intution: audiences wanted the one where Rambo lives. Although even Kotcheff is prosaic about it:




All of that being said: why do you say the 'Rambo dies' ending works better?

I won't be going into a lot of detail because it can very easily go into political territory, but it's not just that he dies. It's that he grabs the gun and pulls the trigger without Trautman letting go or or resisting. The colonel is complicit in the crime even if he wasn't the one actively seeking it. Rambo and Trautman both kill Rambo. That is what I love about it.

And after writing several sentences more on it, I deleted them because I think that's about as far as I can take it on here.

ETA: I will add that I hadn't thought of the take on talking about it to change the outcome, which i should note I really love but also that works best within the confines of knowing about the original ending. Still works great on its own, though, and while I still prefer the original ending, you've pretty much made it so that I won't gripe about the actual ending anymore.

[Saintheart]

Yeah, I'd recommend you pick up the novel then. Morrell is on record specifically wrote Sam Trautman as an allegory for Uncle Sam, if that's the direction you're headed in. :smallsmile:

[Peelee]

Yeah, I'd recommend you pick up the novel then. Morrell is on record specifically wrote Sam Trautman as an allegory for Uncle Sam, if that's the direction you're headed in. :smallsmile:

Much in the same way that Teasle was an avatar of the Korean War and Rambo was an avatar of the Vietnam War, I always saw Trautman as the embodiment of the military in general. But that's just how I saw it in the movie. Definitely want to check out the book now.

[wilphe]

He is CN

Everything with him is about personal relations - not institutions. He starts out looking for his friends because that is what matters to him and the important thing about Trautman is not that he is a Colonel. It is that he is Rambo's Colonel. Any other officer he would not have listened to.

[Saintheart]

ETA: Actually, I'd like to explore your justification for him being Chaotic. He's the same person he was in the military, how do you see the shift from Lawful to Chaotic just because he is no longer active duty? What is different about who he was under the military and who he was as a civilian on the Law/Chaos axis?

Just wanted to add here that yeah, I agree. One of the big driving ideas of the film and the novel was that Rambo was just doing what he'd been trained to do, the only difference being that he was doing it on 'friendly' soil rather than in the Far East, i.e. that the US creates these dangerous toys of men and then does nothing to disassemble them after their purpose is fulfilled and they go home. Rambo's staying Lawful all the way through in the sense he is still abiding by a code of behaviour (even when he goes 'on the offensive' in the last third of the film, he doesn't kill the young soldier driving the Army truck though he could easily have done so).

[Remuko]

this is a little off topic but reading this rambo discourse has made me, someone who never saw nor was interested in rambo, really want to watch at least the first film, if not all of them. you all piqued my interest!

[JyP]

I did JonRa'mbo (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=18985549&postcount=26), in Ridiculous Character Concepts 2: Slam-Dunk! (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=18985549&postcount=26) a long time ago :smallsmile:

edit : I am very impressed with the thoughtful posts above about both endings of First Blood. Alignments are a poor tool to describe this kind of character.

I would say that his alignment depends on the point of view :
- From the perspective of the townies, Rambo would be seen as a chaotic evil monster - because they don't know why all this happened.
- Rambo's point of view is way better described above than I can express - he is a good man at heart.

in a D&D group, this is classical PC superhero shenanigans - they can see themselves as good, but they don't have to pay for all the material destructions they caused while fighting a big villain. In fact, I would say that First Blood is way more thoughtful about war and its consequence than D&D alignment system, and maybe that Korea war and Vietnam war both inspired D&D ranger and Rambo in the same way.

[Peelee]

Just wanted to add here that yeah, I agree. One of the big driving ideas of the film and the novel was that Rambo was just doing what he'd been trained to do, the only difference being that he was doing it on 'friendly' soil rather than in the Far East, i.e. that the US creates these dangerous toys of men and then does nothing to disassemble them after their purpose is fulfilled and they go home. Rambo's staying Lawful all the way through in the sense he is still abiding by a code of behaviour (even when he goes 'on the offensive' in the last third of the film, he doesn't kill the young soldier driving the Army truck though he could easily have done so).

You put it better than I did. Although that's a bit unfair, since you've been putting things better than I did this whole thread. :smallwink:

this is a little off topic but reading this rambo discourse has made me, someone who never saw nor was interested in rambo, really want to watch at least the first film, if not all of them. you all piqued my interest!

The first movie and the novel (haven't read, but even before the discussion in this thread, I knew it went into much more detail on the allegory), are amazing and you should definitely watch them. All other Rambo movies more or less drop the allegory and ramp up the action to coast on being a successful shoot-em-up movie series. I'm not saying they're bad, but I am saying they are thematically very different. If you weren't interested before, maybe still skip them. If anything, seeing the second will let you know if it's worth seeing them all.

But absolutely see the first.

Oh, and this all also applies to the Rocky series. First one is beautiful and exists as an explored thesis put to film, the rest are Rocky punching better than Villain Punchman. There is damned good reason Stallone made it so big, and it's almost entirely on the strength of his early movies.

ETA: also, if you do watch it, I'd definitely be interested in your take on it!

[Remuko]

The first movie and the novel (haven't read, but even before the discussion in this thread, I knew it went into much more detail on the allegory), are amazing and you should definitely watch them. All other Rambo movies more or less drop the allegory and ramp up the action to coast on being a successful shoot-em-up movie series. I'm not saying they're bad, but I am saying they are thematically very different. If you weren't interested before, maybe still skip them. If anything, seeing the second will let you know if it's worth seeing them all.

But absolutely see the first.

Oh, and this all also applies to the Rocky series. First one is beautiful and exists as an explored thesis put to film, the rest are Rocky punching better than Villain Punchman. There is damned good reason Stallone made it so big, and it's almost entirely on the strength of his early movies.

ETA: also, if you do watch it, I'd definitely be interested in your take on it!

Well it doesnt seem to be streaming anywhere for free atm, so idk how soon I'll see it. But if this thread is around and not past necromancy dates by the time I see it I'll gladly add some thoughts

[Gruftzwerg]

I would say that his alignment depends on the point of view :
- From the perspective of the townies, Rambo would be seen as a chaotic evil monster - because they don't know why all this happened.
- Rambo's point of view is way better described above than I can express - he is a good man at heart.



1. In 3.5 terms, what others think about you doesn't effect nor changes your alignment.

2. Imho most people are under the false misconception that "lawful good" is more "good" than "neural good" or "chaotic good". They ignore that the lawful axis is bound to the regime, which can be "evil" or just hinder/prevent "good" help due to bureaucracy. In the worst chase a lawful good character will have to make a choice between them, because they contradict each other. While a neutral good character does not need to bother with these problems. He will always do what he think is right by pure logic/nature and doesn't let the concept of laws hold him back.

Which lead me to the same conclusion as before.

He was L-G or even L-N in his time of duty.

In the first movie he started with N-G.
He didn't followed the sheriffs advice to leave the town. The sheriff represents the law. Even if he is an *******/corrupt/abusing his power, not following his advice or consulting your lawyer is not lawful here.

Later he turns C-G
He starts to fight back, while still caring for their lives

Finally he becomes C-N at the end of the directors cut version
This is imho the sole alignment that allows for suicide in 3.5 terms speaking. Killing yourself is not what nature ('s law) intended for lifeforms. So suicide is chaotic by default. A good person always sees hope and that he can still be of help for other , how chaotic his life may be. An evil person only cares for his own gain in life and always accuses others for his shortcomings. Which leaves only C-N as the sad alignment state where the wrong impulse at the wrong/right time will lead to suicide.

PS: I hope we don't break any forum rules by talking about such a negative side-topic (suicide). It's just the that it is interesting how these things work in 3.5 rules. And I guess we all had suicide characters (PC/NPC) at one point at our table games, but that doesn't make us nonsensitive in regard to this topic. In fact, PnP games helped me to understand those people in these sad situations...

[Peelee]

1. In 3.5 terms, what others think about you doesn't effect nor changes your alignment.

2. Imho most people are under the false misconception that "lawful good" is more "good" than "neural good" or "chaotic good". They ignore that the lawful axis is bound to the regime

Gonna stop you right there, because no. "Lawful" does not mean "will follow the laws of whatever area they are in." That is actually one of the biggest reasons some people (myself among them) dislike the word "lawful" used to describe that alignment. "Order" is better, but still not fantastic. I disagree with your entire concept of the law-chaos axis.

[Gruftzwerg]

Gonna stop you right there, because no. "Lawful" does not mean "will follow the laws of whatever area they are in." That is actually one of the biggest reasons some people (myself among them) dislike the word "lawful" used to describe that alignment. "Ordered" is better, but still not fantastic. I disagree with your entire concept of the law-chaos axis.

sorry but that is exactly was "lawful" means. In real world and in 3.5

From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm):


Law Vs. Chaos

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

There is no exception like "respects his homeland authority" or whatsoever. It's global. You either obey the rules of the area you are in at the moment or you are not lawful.

Lawful means, you obey the laws without asking if they are ok or not.

Neutral Good is the one that always asks if the laws are acceptable.

Chaotic good is the one that doesn't care for the laws and just does what he thinks is right/good.
IIRC AD&D had alignment rules for specific organisation characters like "Ninjas", but as far as I know that is not the chase in 3.5 anymore. If you should disagree, point me to the rules that say so pls.

Lawful and Chaotic are the extremes/fanatics: one sticking more or less blindly to the rules, the other don't caring for the rules
Neural (on the lawful-chaotic axis) is the one that asks the questions and philosophizes about laws, if the laws are good or not. This is where most people are: we would like to stick to the rules, but sometimes we know that some of em are not always "good" or lack refinement.

[Venger]

That is not what lawful means in 3.5. The books themselves often say this and give examples of a paladin adventuring in the nine hells and clarify that they are not obligated to follow these laws. This can be extrapolated to places outside of hell too. Not letting himself be killed by the hick sheriff doesn't preclude rambo being Lawful.

[Peelee]

sorry but that is exactly was "lawful" means. In real world and in 3.5

From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm):



There is no exception like "respects his homeland authority" or whatsoever. It's global. You either obey the rules of the area you are in at the moment or you are not lawful.

Lawful means, you obey the laws without asking if they are ok or not.

"Respect authority" does not mean "blindly follow the laws of whatever area you are in regardless of anything else". "Lawful" does not mean "legal" and "legal" does not mean "lawful". Whether something is legal or not has no bearing on whether something is Lawful or Chaotic (or even Good or Evil). "Legal" is not relevant to the alignment system.

Teasle had no authority to kick Rambo out of town. The entire sheriff's department grossly overstepped their authority, and Rambo was under no obligation whatsoever to accept their treatment of him, regardless of his alignment. Most people would, regardless of alignment, because they would be unable to do anything about it. Rambo was able to do something about it.

The way you describe Lawful, any villainous lair could dictate that all adventurers must immediately, loudly, and publicly surrender to the villain or any and all creatures in league with the villain for summary execution, and all Lawful characters would be forced to do that. That is, clearly, ridiculous, so that interpretation must be wrong.

ETA: But don't just take our words for it, let's ask Rich Burlew, notable game designer who wrote several D&D 3.5 works for Wizards of the Coast:

Umm, it's always seemed to me that one could go through the core book and replace 'lawful' with 'consistent' and have it be just as accurate if not more so. I point this out to illustrate the fact that if you hold that your honor should not be broken and follow that dictate, then you are adhering to a 'law,' thereby making you 'lawful'.Exactly. Being Lawful in D&D means following a set of codes and rules—not obeying every law of every nation you ever find yourself in. As I've said before, when your paladin enters the evil Orc Warlord's swamp and starts killing orcs who are raiding a nearby human village, does he turn himself in to be tried by the Warlord for murder? No, because he doesn't recognize the Warlord's authority as a head of state. As far as he's concerned, that swamp belongs to the King whose nation it's in, regardless of what the orcs who live there think.

Likewise, if a paladin has a strict code of honor, they can easily view that as more important than secular laws. They might agree to obey laws when possible, just because it's a nice thing to do, but in the end, their calling to serve the Power of Good may cause them to break those laws in an emergency (an emergency like a pint-size psychopath on the loose). If they continue to follow their core belief of "lawfulness"—their honor code—then the single breaking of a secular law will not cause them to change alignment. It is a nonlawful act, yes, but one does NOT change alignment from one nonlawful act. Only a consistent pattern of behavior will shift alignment, and contrary to popular belief, only a true switch to a nonlawful alignment will cause a paladin to fall. One evil act, and you fall; one nonlawful act, and you don't.

On the other hand, I could post a comic with Miko standing still for 12 panels, and within 5 minutes there would be someone posting, "Miko should Fall for her inaction!" ::)

[Melcar]

John J. Rambo is clearly LG!

[Gruftzwerg]

"Respect authority" does not mean "blindly follow the laws of whatever area you are in regardless of anything else". "Lawful" does not mean "legal" and "legal" does not mean "lawful". Whether something is legal or not has no bearing on whether something is Lawful or Chaotic (or even Good or Evil). "Legal" is not relevant to the alignment system.

Teasle had no authority to kick Rambo out of town. The entire sheriff's department grossly overstepped their authority, and Rambo was under no obligation whatsoever to accept their treatment of him, regardless of his alignment. Most people would, regardless of alignment, because they would be unable to do anything about it. Rambo was able to do something about it.

The way you describe Lawful, any villainous lair could dictate that all adventurers must immediately, loudly, and publicly surrender to the villain or any and all creatures in league with the villain for summary execution, and all Lawful characters would be forced to do that. That is, clearly, ridiculous, so that interpretation must be wrong.

ETA: But don't just take our words for it, let's ask Rich Burlew, notable game designer who wrote several D&D 3.5 works for Wizards of the Coast:
Sorry, but I still hold my claim that a Lawful person seeks solutions on a more diplomatic way. As said, a lawful person would maybe call a lawyer or try to go public with media against the "sheriff" (who is clearly abusing his autority which is a crime).
But what did John Rambo? He stayed, knowing that if their ways should cross again, there will be more conflict.

I'll ask you what you (as normal person, non elite soldier) would do in such a situation when you face authority who abuse their status? Would you let it come to more direct conflict well knowing the authority will let it look like you started it? A lawful person would seek a solution in order and not in chaos. But staying there, knowing there is a chance that your ways may cross that evil authority again without seeking for help from the laws is not ordered. It is pure madness and chaos!
Rambo didn't try to negotiate, demanding his rights and showing that the sheriff is the one crossing the law. He could have done it right at their first meeting, but he didn't. He could have done the same as he got imprisoned, but he reacted like you would expect from an elite soldier. You only give a bare minimum on info of what you are allowed as soldier. So if you are lucky, you may say your name and company you belonged to. And that is what Rambo did. He disobeyed the authority in the sheriffs department in many ways instead of trying to get them to hear his story and clear the misunderstanding and showing that the sheriff is baddy here. No he saw the situation as an invitation for more conflict (due toe the drill as soldier again I guess..).

Where do you see any order here??
I could see the reasoning if he would have been captured in a country with no trustworthy juristic system, but that is not the chase here. He did have enough other "more ordered" options that he maybe just couldn't see because of his conditioning as soldier. But that doesn't change the fact that his behavior ain't lawful in any kind here.
"The wiser gives in" is a lawful solution imho, while accepting provocations as invitation for conflict is surely chaotic.
He could have be more in line while in the department and try to be charismatic to the others there. He could have tried to charm em with revealing being an highly ordered military hero who just wants to see his old buddy from war. But he wasn't conditioned for that.. (maybe you can feel my antipathy for military conditioning in my text.. it really makes me sick just to think/talk about it.. -.-).

I'm not blaming Rambo for his decisions/alignment (due to the military conditioning), but that doesn't change what his actions are: Not Lawful. And at the end of the first movie it is definitively chaotic (first good, then neutral due to the suicide..)

[Gusmo]

I've seen Rambos 1, 2, 3, and 4, and have no familiarity with the book. I'm gonna go with chaotic good. Self interest rarely seems to be a motivation for him, if ever. Throughout the franchise Rambo consistently shows a strong desire to protect the innocent, going out of his way to do so. The POWs in 2, the Afghans and Trautman in 3, and the missionaries in 4. Movies 2, 3, and 4 are contingent on him actively choosing to go on a mission versus staying put. While he definitely gets lost in revenge and carnage at times, he is also capable of incredible restraint. As pointed out, in the first movie he has so many opportunities to kill people, and doesn't. Even after escaping the cave and hijacking the truck, consider his interaction with the driver. Even here, when his WAR! circuitry has been reactivated, he recognizes and avoids harm when possible. He also could have murdered Murdoch and didn't.

While I would say he's solidly positioned as good overall, he's all over the map on the law/chaos axis, and I think his PTSD makes judgment here very difficult, if not impossible.

[Melcar]

Sorry, but I still hold my claim that a Lawful person seeks solutions on a more diplomatic way. As said, a lawful person would maybe call a lawyer or try to go public with media against the "sheriff" (who is clearly abusing his autority which is a crime).

You might say that, but just like a paladin, John has his own moral codex, which he adheres to... In his view: "they drew first blood" ergo they were evil, doing evil actions. He went over there and watched his friends die face down in the muck. In the army he was in charge of million dollar equipment... back in civilian land, he couldn't even hold a job as a car-washer... He clearly lived by words like honor, code, loyalty and he used these words as a backbone of a life spent defending something...

Yes he went nuts, but in his mind, I very much believe he's adhering to his own moral code...

Also, I don't think lawful is so simple as to just mean that you follow or use the law, I think its more complex than that, and I believe its more to do with being viewing order as apposed to chaos as something good... and there can be many types of order... war is chaotic, but its one form of order...

[Peelee]

Sorry, but I still hold my claim that a Lawful person seeks solutions on a more diplomatic way. As said, a lawful person would maybe call a lawyer or try to go public with media against the "sheriff" (who is clearly abusing his autority which is a crime).
But what did John Rambo? He stayed, knowing that if their ways should cross again, there will be more conflict.

I'll ask you what you (as normal person, non elite soldier) would do in such a situation when you face authority who abuse their status? Would you let it come to more direct conflict well knowing the authority will let it look like you started it? A lawful person would seek a solution in order and not in chaos. But staying there, knowing there is a chance that your ways may cross that evil authority again without seeking for help from the laws is not ordered. It is pure madness and chaos!
Rambo didn't try to negotiate, demanding his rights and showing that the sheriff is the one crossing the law. He could have done it right at their first meeting, but he didn't. He could have done the same as he got imprisoned, but he reacted like you would expect from an elite soldier. You only give a bare minimum on info of what you are allowed as soldier. So if you are lucky, you may say your name and company you belonged to. And that is what Rambo did. He disobeyed the authority in the sheriffs department in many ways instead of trying to get them to hear his story and clear the misunderstanding and showing that the sheriff is baddy here. No he saw the situation as an invitation for more conflict (due toe the drill as soldier again I guess..).

Where do you see any order here??
I could see the reasoning if he would have been captured in a country with no trustworthy juristic system, but that is not the chase here. He did have enough other "more ordered" options that he maybe just couldn't see because of his conditioning as soldier. But that doesn't change the fact that his behavior ain't lawful in any kind here.
"The wiser gives in" is a lawful solution imho, while accepting provocations as invitation for conflict is surely chaotic.
He could have be more in line while in the department and try to be charismatic to the others there. He could have tried to charm em with revealing being an highly ordered military hero who just wants to see his old buddy from war. But he wasn't conditioned for that.. (maybe you can feel my antipathy for military conditioning in my text.. it really makes me sick just to think/talk about it.. -.-).

I'm not blaming Rambo for his decisions/alignment (due to the military conditioning), but that doesn't change what his actions are: Not Lawful. And at the end of the first movie it is definitively chaotic (first good, then neutral due to the suicide..)

I think the most pertinent issue is actually in a previous comment:

Lawful and Chaotic are the extremes/fanatics: one sticking more or less blindly to the rules, the other don't caring for the rules
Neural (on the lawful-chaotic axis) is the one that asks the questions and philosophizes about laws, if the laws are good or not. This is where most people are: we would like to stick to the rules, but sometimes we know that some of em are not always "good" or lack refinement.
Because no. Absolutely not. Lawful and Chaotic are not extremes/fanatics. Extremists and fanatics exist, but that is not all Lawful or Chaotic characters, and that's where the disconnect is. That is not stated anywhere in the rules. The Law/Chaos axis, just like the Good/Evil axis, is a spectrum. They are not a straightjacket. You are treating them like a straightjacket. You are treating "Lawful" as an impossibly strict, inflexible structure, when it is not that, the rules never say it is that, and at least game designer who wrote books in 3.5 and who conveniently has posted on this forum has explicitly said the opposite of that. If that's how you like to play your games, that's perfectly fine, you do you. But if you want to argue that that's how it is built into the 3.5 system, then I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Lawful is not a drop-down menu of acceptable actions. That's now how it works.

Hell, you yourself say that soldiers are Lawful, but then complain that Rambo responded as a soldier and so was not Lawful. Which is it? Are soldiers lawful or not? If that is a chaotic act under a normally lawful guise, then how many chaotic acts does it take to be non-lawful? One?

ETA: Also, on re-read, I should point out that I'm not saying you can't argue Rambo is not Lawful. Several people have. I'm saying that you cannot argue that Rambo is not Lawful on the basis of "he didn't call a lawyer", because of how unbelievably restrictive that definition of Lawful is.

[AnimeTheCat]

I don't think anyone is arguing that he is Isn't good, so on the Good-Evil spectrum, that's an easy call.

On the Law-Chaos spectrum, I'm almost certain he's Neutral. Just look in this thread. There are valid arguments on both sides based exclusively on his actions that show both lawful behavior (honor, trustworthiness) and chaotic behavior (resentment towards legitimate authority, irresponsibility, personal freedom). He's neutral, just like most people in the world. If anything, he's neutral leaning chaotic simply for the fact that he has a tendency to rebel rather than submit. PHB describes neutral Good as "...works with kings and magistrates but does not fel beholden to them." which sounds pretty much like Rambo. He's cooperative enough, to a point, and then he's not.

[hamishspence]

Lawful and Chaotic are not extremes/fanatics. Extremists and fanatics exist, but that is not all Lawful or Chaotic characters, and that's where the disconnect is. That is not stated anywhere in the rules. The Law/Chaos axis, just like the Good/Evil axis, is a spectrum. They are not a straightjacket.

Agreed. The same is true of Good and Evil. Hence my preference for "Humans may average out to TN, but TN is only slightly more common than all the other alignments"

Rather than "the vast majority of humans are TN, and the 8 other alignments are all tiny minorities".


I don't think anyone is arguing that he is good

One person did:


I would say that a person who risks his life to spare people who beaten, insulted and tried to kill him, cannot be anything else than Good aligned.
Rambo in the film did absolutely nothing evil or wrong. They arrested him for no reason, beaten him, tortured him with cold water and he react ( by fleeing, not by hurting them ) only when they threaten to cut him with a razor.
And still he doesn't kill them, even when given plenty of opportunities.

Damn, if Rambo was a Paladin, I would not make him fall. Which is an awful lot for me.

[Peelee]

One person did:

Two. I also peg him as LG, though in a world that is incompatible with him.

[AnimeTheCat]

One person did:

oh, I typed dumbly. I meant "I don't think anyone is arguing that he Isn't good". That pretty much entirely changes that post :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

There's quite a few "Rambo is Neutral" arguments - but none for "Rambo is Evil", at least so far.

[Gruftzwerg]

I think the most pertinent issue is actually in a previous comment:

Because no. Absolutely not. Lawful and Chaotic are not extremes/fanatics.

Why do we have neutral (be it for the law/chaos or the good/evil axis? I ask you why? For those in the middle who don't polarize or have extreme opinions. Which leads us to the conclusion that lawful chaotic are those you paint if more white&black and don't see the grey between anymore.

What you are looking for is neutral, not lawful.

And yeah, as soldier you can count him lawful. But in the movie he isn't a soldier in duty anymore but still behaves like one (because the military didn't do anything to undo the military drill and mental damage caused).
He didn't get any orders to behave like this in his home country. He is a civilian who behaves like a soldier and later disobeys the entire authority in the sheriff department because of a personal clinch with Teasty and getting provoked. He could have tried to negotiate, but he gave in to the provocation.

I'm totally on the side that Rambo is a victim and that he ain't responsible for his alignment. It's not self chosen. Because in the military he got drilled to be lawful/good. And his behaving was manipulated and specifically tailored towards warfare. But they have done nothing to make him compatible with normal civilian life and just abandoned him to save money. But that doesn't change that his actions are not lawful anymore as civilian. He is chaotic good for the most part but towards the end it becomes chaotic neutral. He starts his full scale one man army war. That's like saying people who run amok can be lawful if they had a bad childhood or something in those lines. Sure, some people had a difficult and hard life and sometimes can't be hold full responsible for their actions. But that doesn't change that those actions might not be lawful. That is on a total different page.

Imho you are trying to give him a bonus because he ain't responsible for his mental condition. But how your actions count on the alignment axis don't care If you can be hold responsible for your characters mental condition.

[Peelee]

Why do we have neutral (be it for the law/chaos or the good/evil axis? I ask you why? For those in the middle who don't polarize or have extreme opinions. Which leads us to the conclusion that lawful chaotic are those you paint if more white&black and don't see the grey between anymore.

What you are looking for is neutral, not lawful.

And yeah, as soldier you can count him lawful. But in the movie he isn't a soldier in duty anymore but still behaves like one (because the military didn't do anything to undo the military drill and mental damage caused).
He didn't get any orders to behave like this in his home country. He is a civilian who behaves like a soldier and later disobeys the entire authority in the sheriff department because of a personal clinch with Teasty and getting provoked. He could have tried to negotiate, but he gave in to the provocation.

I'm totally on the side that Rambo is a victim and that he ain't responsible for his alignment. It's not self chosen. Because in the military he got drilled to be lawful/good. And his behaving was manipulated and specifically tailored towards warfare. But they have done nothing to make him compatible with normal civilian life and just abandoned him to save money. But that doesn't change that his actions are not lawful anymore as civilian. He is chaotic good for the most part but towards the end it becomes chaotic neutral. He starts his full scale one man army war. That's like saying people who run amok can be lawful if they had a bad childhood or something in those lines. Sure, some people had a difficult and hard life and sometimes can't be hold full responsible for their actions. But that doesn't change that those actions might not be lawful. That is on a total different page.

Imho you are trying to give him a bonus because he ain't responsible for his mental condition. But how your actions count on the alignment axis don't care If you can be hold responsible for your characters mental condition.

Again, alignment is a spectrum. Think a line that starts off blue on the one end and ends up red on the other. The entire rest of the line is a gradient. Yes, purple exists, but there's going to be a large amount of that line which is blue and a large amount of that line which is red. You won't be able to say "here is the exact point at which it becomes purple"; you know that it;'s purple in the middle, but the red fades into purple and the purple fades into blue. You would certainly not say "only the single dot at the end of the line is blue, and only the single dot at the other end is red". Well, imean, you could say that, but you would get a rather large amount of pushback from anyone else looking at the line.

You're thinking about a alignment in a pure black-and-white mentality where any shade of grey is neutral, but it simply isn't like that. The rules never say it is like that, the game designers never said it is like that, no player I've ever met IRL (and the vast majority of players I've ever met online) have ever acted like that. There are different shades of Lawful just like there are different shades of Evil. There are different shades of Chaotic and Good. There are different shades of Neutral. That's not a problem, that's a benefit.

The military trained Rambo to be Lawful. He was a very good soldier; he remained Lawful. When he was discharged, they didn't undo any of that, so he was still Lawful. Alignment doesn't change if you leave your job. A paladin that retires doesn't switch over to Neutral all of a sudden. Rambo was still very Lawful, and acted Lawful in the movie - the problem was that the type of Lawfulness that made him a perfect soldier didn't translate to the civilian world. As he himself said, it's not something you just turn off. He was the exact same person that he was in the special forces. He didn't change, which is the entire point of the movie.

You're wanting alignment to be nice, neat boxes. That's not the case. They're ugly, messy spectrums. You can have a little red in the blue without being purple. Alignment is a shorthand to describe an overall character's tendencies, not a rigid box that prevents them from performing certain actions or forces them to only react certain ways.

[Doctor Awkward]

The reason why Rambo is chaotic in the first film is because he breaks laws.

-He resisted the officers attempt to process him for his arrest.
-He assaults them as he flees from jail.
-He assaults them again when they attempt to recapture him in the woods.

The only way the Rambo of the first film remains a lawful character is if the authority in that film was illegitimate.

If it is illegitimate, then Rambo is lawful neutral at best. There is no scenario under the rules as written in which Rambo's actions in the first film allow him to remain a good character. Good characters in D&D do not deliberately harm anyone except the bad guys. A good character would have escaped from jail while making extra effort not to harm anyone. A good character also would not have ambushed the police in the woods. He would have just run from them.

[hamishspence]

Didn't Rambo go to considerable lengths to avoid killing anyone? Which makes his violence in self-defence, towards corrupt cops (Galt in particular was massively corrupt) something that wouldn't "change his alignment" so to speak?

Good characters try to avoid unnecessary or excessive violence. Movie Rambo, as opposed to book Rambo, could plausibly be a flawed Good guy - imperfect, but still trying.

[lylsyly]

My take (having been a soldier myself)

1. I was lawful good when I joined the army in order to serve not just my country but my idea of a proper society.
2. If i was dissed like nam vets were, then yes, I might a have devoloped a low threshold when being F'ed with when I wasn't doing anything wrong.
If I was being persecuted unjustly - then I might just be as violent as needed to survive. (note he did not kill unecessarliy). I could go on about the sequels but ....

2 coppers ...

[Peelee]

The reason why Rambo is chaotic in the first film is because he breaks laws.

Again, "Lawful" does not mean "legal" and "legal" does not mean "Lawful".

[the_tick_rules]

i would say he began as lawful good. Regardless of how one thinks of vietnam/US involvement he believed he was doing good for his country. By the end of his movies either chaotic neutral or chaotic good. he had that world weariness for neutrality but when the aid workers were kidnapped or the cartels kidnapped his adopted daughter he sure brought down some righteous fury.

[Bartmanhomer]

John Rambo is Neutral Good because he doesn't care about the law/chaos axis and he believes in the goodness of killing evil armies.

[Gruftzwerg]

Again, alignment is a spectrum. Think a line that starts off blue on the one end and ends up red on the other. The entire rest of the line is a gradient. Yes, purple exists, but there's going to be a large amount of that line which is blue and a large amount of that line which is red. You won't be able to say "here is the exact point at which it becomes purple"; you know that it;'s purple in the middle, but the red fades into purple and the purple fades into blue. You would certainly not say "only the single dot at the end of the line is blue, and only the single dot at the other end is red". Well, imean, you could say that, but you would get a rather large amount of pushback from anyone else looking at the line.

You're thinking about a alignment in a pure black-and-white mentality where any shade of grey is neutral, but it simply isn't like that. The rules never say it is like that, the game designers never said it is like that, no player I've ever met IRL (and the vast majority of players I've ever met online) have ever acted like that. There are different shades of Lawful just like there are different shades of Evil. There are different shades of Chaotic and Good. There are different shades of Neutral. That's not a problem, that's a benefit.

...
..

Sure under moist circumstances your alignment won't change upon a single action. But Rambo did behave more then once chaotic. Over the entire film his actions are becoming more and more chaotic. Even if we say that he starts the film L-G his very first actions drive him toward C-G / C-N.

I'm sorry if you have only played tables that set an alignment and than for most of the time ignore it again. I had DM who liked to takes notes and give points for actions like most (!) d&d video games do it. And something like this is what imho is intended in 3.5

It's just that most tables either ignore this part of the game or barely make any use of it. But that is your problem not, the problem of the system.
If you want toplay alignment to its fullest out, the DM needs to keep track of it like he does keep track of XP. And here is the real problem. Most DMs are already bothered enough with keeping track of XP and thus just ignore alignment or even just don't know that it is their duty to keep track of it. They play it out completely the wrong way. Instead of taking alignment notes and assigning point to each of a players actions, they tend to "warn" their player to don't do things against their alignment as it they where paladins (and even then they should face the consequences after their actions and not be warned by the DM).

Sure most adventures are tailored towards good parties which most of the parties are imho. So alignment can become more or less irrelevant to track if the circustances just leave not much room for it.
But I had also games with DMs who liked to build adventures more focused on the alignment axis and imho no one should miss out about these kind of adventures in 3.5
Nobody forces you to play alignments out. But saying that it is not intended for that is just plain wrong imho.

I'll try again to explain why he ain't lawful anymore.
If you have a job that gives you special rights, you have those rights only while doing your job correct and while still being at your job.
A former police officer can't just go out and play police.
A former security guy, can't pass restricted areas anymore.
Even just a former employee don't have any rights anymore to enter his former companies buildings public restricted areas.

All those things are only temporary allowed and within the law. If you do it outside of those rules, you break the rules/laws. John Rambo ain't a soldier in duty and behaves like one (not his fault, but that doesn't change your alignment).

Remember that d&d doesn't ask you if you did something intentionally and free willing. If you get mind controlled and do evil actions, you can't be held responsible for your actions maybe, but that doesn't stop 3.5 to punish you on the alignment axis. Military conditioning is some kind of mind control. But again, it doesn't change that the 3.5 alignment system doesn't care if you did it willingly or by force.

@peelee
you keep reposting that lawful != legal

Can you point us to the 3.5 rule that says so? Otherwise Imho english definition would back it up, that lawful means legal. You can try to argue about this at the court. I don't think you will find many friends there with that opinion.

[hamishspence]

From WOTC's 3.5 ed online articles:

Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)


Lawful does not necessarily mean "adheres to the letter of the law." A law (or body of laws) is merely a rule that a government imposes on those who are subject to its power. A lawful alignment, on the other hand, represents an orderly approach to matters of ethics and personal conduct. Most lawful characters do respect the order that the laws of the realm represent, but adherence to local ordinances is only one way of demonstrating a lawful alignment.
...
As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious.
...
The law of the land in any given place is most likely designed to promote social order, so in general terms, lawful characters are more likely to respect it than chaotic characters are. However, the content of the law matters much more than its mere existence.

Solution 1: Laws and the PC

Any character might fear the consequences of breaking a local law, especially when the authorities rule with an iron hand. Very few characters, however, should make important decisions based solely on the legality of the choices.
...
A paladin is both lawful and good, and she must uphold both aspects of her alignment. Thus, if the laws in a particular realm are corrupt and evil, she is under no obligation to obey them.

[Gruftzwerg]

From WOTC's 3.5 ed online articles:

Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)
..

While I appreciate the article, I would like to have the actual rule text and not some explanation which might be just a non rule based opinion. The article does not have a single rule quote. As such so far it is only RAI. A RAW text to confirm this would be much better.

[hamishspence]

Lawful Neutral - PHB page 105:

A Lawful Neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her.

Eberron: Sharn: City of Towers - page 126 - Alignment and Justice

Can a lawful good character break the law?
Yes, she can - if she has good reason. A lawful alignment indicates a belief that order and structure are a valuable part of society. However, if a character is visiting a society whose cultural values are distinctly different from her own, she is not required to adhere to those laws. A tribe of barbarian giants in Xen'drik may have a law stating that whenever newcomers arrive, they must select one of their party, kill him, and eat him. A lawful giant from this culture would be expected to take this seriously - but a lawful character from Sharn would consider this to be abominable. Likewise, Cavallah the ogre mage is lawful evil, yet she is in charge of a criminal organisation. Her lawful alignment reflects her adherence to the laws and decrees of the hags of Droaam, along with her tendency to maintain strict discipline among the members of Daask.
Alignment is only intended to be a general guideline to personality and behaviour, especially in Eberrron. Alignments are extreme viewpoints, and people often stray from the path. So a lawful character can break the law, if she has to. But given the choice she would prefer to respect the structures imposed by society.

[Gruftzwerg]

Lawful Neutral - PHB page 105:

A Lawful Neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her.

Eberron: Sharn: City of Towers - page 126 - Alignment and Justice

Can a lawful good character break the law?
Yes, she can - if she has good reason. A lawful alignment indicates a belief that order and structure are a valuable part of society. However, if a character is visiting a society whose cultural values are distinctly different from her own, she is not required to adhere to those laws. A tribe of barbarian giants in Xen'drik may have a law stating that whenever newcomers arrive, they must select one of their party, kill him, and eat him. A lawful giant from this culture would be expected to take this seriously - but a lawful character from Sharn would consider this to be abominable. Likewise, Cavallah the ogre mage is lawful evil, yet she is in charge of a criminal organisation. Her lawful alignment reflects her adherence to the laws and decrees of the hags of Droaam, along with her tendency to maintain strict discipline among the members of Daask.
Alignment is only intended to be a general guideline to personality and behaviour, especially in Eberrron. Alignments are extreme viewpoints, and people often stray from the path. So a lawful character can break the law, if she has to. But given the choice she would prefer to respect the structures imposed by society.
Nice ty. Now we have something to work with.

I don't see Rambo coming for an Barbarian tribe. He is mainly a US citizen and only "secondary has been a soldier"!
You would need to assume that the military drill has failed (!) and that he instead of following commands did it because he developed his own code of honor (during his duties in the military time). I don't see any indicators for that. Imho it looks more like he was a functioning soldier who was "lawful" to the command structure.
I assume that the military never told him to behave like that as civilian. It was conditioning for warfare. That the military has failed their job at this and is to blame for his alignment, doesn't change that it is not lawful anymore.

And while I can see reason for "personal code" as orientation point for your alignment, imho you are streching it to far here. Otherwise any villain can say "that's what I think is right and good" and run around slaying people with a lawful good alignment (https://cdn.anisearch.de/images/character/screen/0/218/full/34410.jpg). And that is not the intention of "personal codes".

"hey I start my own riot, because some police officer pissed me off. Why should I bother with lawyers and laws. I make my own rules and everything is fine".
That's how it sounds for me if you want to say that he is still lawful in some sort of personal code..
He is not an immigrant in another country. He lived most of his life in that country and should know what commonly is expected to be viewed as "lawful". He does not try to negotiate in any manner. That is clearly chaotic thendency and has nothing to do with personal codes anymore imho.

[hamishspence]

Didn't Galt cut him with a razor, and get away with it?

When the police are that corrupt, not trusting them is reasonable behaviour even for Lawful characters.

[Peelee]

So right off the bat, I'd like to apologize to everyone else for this wall of text.


Sure under moist circumstances your alignment won't change upon a single action. But Rambo did behave more then once chaotic. Over the entire film his actions are becoming more and more chaotic. Even if we say that he starts the film L-G his very first actions drive him toward C-G / C-N.
I remember earlier you claiming that I was conflating Lawful and Good, but it really seems as if you're the one doing that here; you say that even if he starts as LG, his chaotic actions lead to him not only becoming Chaotic, but possibly Chaotic Neutral. A shift on the Law/Chaos axis has no bearing on the Good/Evil axis, yet you're claiming it does here with no justification.


I'm sorry if you have only played tables that set an alignment and than for most of the time ignore it again. I had DM who liked to takes notes and give points for actions like most (!) d&d video games do it. And something like this is what imho is intended in 3.5
First off, I never said that any of my tables ignored alignment. I said that none of my tables (and every player I've known IRL, and the vast majority of people I've discussed with and seen discuss online) see how alignment works the same way you do. That you seem to have interpreted that as "we ignore alignment" confuses me. I do not understand how you were able to make that jump.

It's just that most tables either ignore this part of the game or barely make any use of it. But that is your problem not, the problem of the system.
If you want toplay alignment to its fullest out, the DM needs to keep track of it like he does keep track of XP. And here is the real problem. Most DMs are already bothered enough with keeping track of XP and thus just ignore alignment or even just don't know that it is their duty to keep track of it. They play it out completely the wrong way. Instead of taking alignment notes and assigning point to each of a players actions, they tend to "warn" their player to don't do things against their alignment as it they where paladins (and even then they should face the consequences after their actions and not be warned by the DM).
Again, my tables have never ignored alignment, we just never played it to the absolute extreme that is "Lawful and Chaotic characters are fanatics, Lawful characters must absolutely obey all laws regardless of any context or circumstances." Not adhering to that interpretation (which, again, is a houserule of your own creation) does not mean "do not play alignment".

Further, others that play it out differently than you do not play it the wrong way, as there is no wrong way. For example, I contend that you are playing it in a way that is not supported by the rules. I do not contend that you are playing it wrong; if you like that and have fun with that, more power to you. That's fantastic. But I will contend that you are playing under a houseruled version of the alignment system and that if you want to weigh in on generalized debates about alignment then you should realize that you are operating under a houseruled version which does not correlate with the standard 3.5 alignment system. Nobody plays D&D wrong. Some people play under alternate interpretations of the rules. You are one of those people. That is not bad. That is simply not the standard.


Sure most adventures are tailored towards good parties which most of the parties are imho. So alignment can become more or less irrelevant to track if the circustances just leave not much room for it.
But I had also games with DMs who liked to build adventures more focused on the alignment axis and imho no one should miss out about these kind of adventures in 3.5
Nobody forces you to play alignments out. But saying that it is not intended for that is just plain wrong imho.
Again, I have never claimed it is not intended for play. This has been a remarkably long dissection of something that I never said, and again, I find it odd that I said "the way the 3.5 alignment system works is not how your version of the alignment system works" and you interpreted that as "i do not play with the alignment system at all and also it is not intended for play in general".


I'll try again to explain why he ain't lawful anymore.
If you have a job that gives you special rights, you have those rights only while doing your job correct and while still being at your job.
A former police officer can't just go out and play police.
A former security guy, can't pass restricted areas anymore.
Even just a former employee don't have any rights anymore to enter his former companies buildings public restricted areas.
That would be an excellent reason to not have class abilities anymore. For example, a police officer would have the class ability to make arrests. A retired police officer would lose that class ability. Alignment is not a class ability. Alignment is a facet of a character's identity. A police officer would not lose that on retiring. If this is how you treat alignment, then you are treating it significantly more differently than I originally thought. If you want to claim that the way you play the alignment system is how standard 3.5 rules are written or intended, this does not strengthen your argument, it weakens your argument.


All those things are only temporary allowed and within the law. If you do it outside of those rules, you break the rules/laws.
Again, conflating "Lawful" with "legal". I'll explore this more further below.

John Rambo ain't a soldier in duty and behaves like one (not his fault, but that doesn't change your alignment).
By your own logic, if soldiers are Lawful, and Rambo behaves like a soldier, then Rambo is behaving Lawful. Which, I feel the need to point out, is correct and is the entire point of the movie.

Remember that d&d doesn't ask you if you did something intentionally and free willing. If you get mind controlled and do evil actions, you can't be held responsible for your actions maybe, but that doesn't stop 3.5 to punish you on the alignment axis. Military conditioning is some kind of mind control.
Whoah. There is a frankly staggering amount to unpack there, much of which is likely not forum-friendly. Suffice it to say, I strenuously object to your assertion here, and all the implications thereof.


@peelee
you keep reposting that lawful != legal

Can you point us to the 3.5 rule that says so? Otherwise Imho english definition would back it up, that lawful means legal. You can try to argue about this at the court. I don't think you will find many friends there with that opinion.
So here's a fun disconnect in which you are taking a literal definition and applying it without consideration for communication. And there's a wonderful example I can use to show how this is a flawed way to see language: I have a Summa *** Laude Bachelor's degree from NYU and a Doctorate in Education from Columbia. Now, I never went to those schools, and those degrees don't have my name on them, but I am in physical possession of them so the statement "I have a Summa *** Laude Bachelor's degree from NYU and a Doctorate in Education from Columbia" is 100% objective truth and literal fact. However, it is misleading as all hell; if I tried to actually claim that without the followup, I would be lying, because it connotes the unambigious idea that I went to those schools and the degrees are in my name. The literal meaning of the words have no bearing on the intended or perceived understanding of the statement. So, as you can clearly see, using the literal definition of a word as the only way to interpret that word is subject to failure of communication. The important thing is to understand what is being communicated, not what the exact and specific words are.

We can also apply this to alignment fairly easily: if "Lawful" meant "legal", they would not need to extrapolate on what "Lawful" means (which, as you yourself directly quoted, does not contain the word "legal" at all):

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
In fact, if you go to the SRD section on alignment (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) and run a search for the word "legal", it will return zero hits. If you run a search for the word "law" (ideally with a space, comma, or other punctuation after to disclude any "lawful" hits), you will find one single use in the legal sense, under Lawful Neutral:

Lawful Neutral, "Judge"
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.
Bolding mine. Note the very important "or". Acting as legal-law dictates is one possible way to be Lawful, but not the only way, and certainly not an absolute requirement for all Lawful characters.

(Also, to go back to a previous bit, note how LN explicitly mentions that it is a way to act without being a zealot; the rules thus explicitly state that Lawful is not zealotry, as opposed to your claim that Law and Chaos are for extremists.)

And, to further drive the point home, let's assume that a Lawful alignment means following the literal meaning of the word "lawful"; logically, Chaotic alignment must then follow the literal meaning of the word "chaotic". Any Chaotic character would strive for confusion and randomness. This is not how Chaotic is described in the PHB/SRD at all, so this alone should indicate that the literal definitions of words are not necessarily relevant to how they are being used as game terms.



Nice ty. Now we have something to work with.

I don't see Rambo coming for an Barbarian tribe. He is mainly a US citizen and only "secondary has been a soldier"!
You would need to assume that the military drill has failed (!) and that he instead of following commands did it because he developed his own code of honor (during his duties in the military time). I don't see any indicators for that. Imho it looks more like he was a functioning soldier who was "lawful" to the command structure.
I assume that the military never told him to behave like that as civilian. It was conditioning for warfare. That the military has failed their job at this and is to blame for his alignment, doesn't change that it is not lawful anymore.
Again, alignment is not a hat that you stop wearing once you stop doing a job. Alignment is a part of your personality. If you decide to become a lawyer, and as a result of law school, internships, and legal training you become pessimistic, then you're not going to stop being pessimistic the day after you retire just because you're not a lawyer anymore. It doesn't matter that the law school and court system are to blame for it, it's a part of who you are and you don't lose that just because you don't practice anymore. Just as a soldier who has had Lawfulness drilled into them over boot camp, military service, special forces training, etc. etc. Yes, they are Lawful because of the military, but that does not change the fact that it's now a part of who they are. Just because they get a discharge does not undo the work that was built into them. Their alignment is not their uniform, and your entire disconnect here is that you are acting as if it is.



And while I can see reason for "personal code" as orientation point for your alignment, imho you are streching it to far here. Otherwise any villain can say "that's what I think is right and good" and run around slaying people with a lawful good alignment (https://cdn.anisearch.de/images/character/screen/0/218/full/34410.jpg). And that is not the intention of "personal codes".
And again, you are conflating the Law/Chaos axis with the Good/Evil axis. Personal code has no bearing on the Good/Evil axis, yet you immediately jump to such a character being Good for no apparent reason.

Now, let me try to show you why, according to the rules as written, Rambo qualifies as Lawful:

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Now let's look at First Blood Rambo - specifically the final scene, where Rambo is baring his soul to Trautman.:

Rambo: Nothing is over! Nothing! You just don't turn it off! It wasn't my war! You asked me, I didn't ask you! And I did what I had to do to win! But somebody wouldn't let us win! And I come back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting. Calling me baby killer and all kinds of vile crap! Who are they to protest me, huh? Who are they? Unless they've been me and been there and know what the hell they're yelling about!
Trautman: It was a bad time for everyone, Rambo. It's all in the past now.
Rambo: For YOU! For me civilian life is nothing! In the field we had a code of honor, you watch my back, I watch yours. Back here there's nothing!
Trautman: You're the last of an elite group, don't end it like this.
Rambo: Back there I could fly a gunship, I could drive a tank, I was in charge of million dollar equipment, back here I can't even hold a job PARKING CARS!

Everything Rambo says is practically an example in action of how 3.5 describes it. Rambo did what the military told him - he was reliable, trustworthy. He disdains anyone who takes issue with what happened over there if they weren't there with him - he's closed-minded and judgemental. He was a perfect soldier but he can't integrate into civilian life, he can't just turn it off - he is not adaptable. He blames this on the fact that in the war, they had a code of honor, an implicit and unbroken trust between them which the civilian world lacks - he is openly lamenting that he's in a society in which people cannot depend on each other. All of his problems stem from the fact that he is not only Lawful, but specifically Lawful in a way that is incompatible with the world he now lives in.


But no, he apparently cannot be Lawful because he didn't get to put on the same pants that Trautman did. No. That's not how it works. That's not how the books say it works, that's not how anyone I've ever played with has ever acted like it works. You are the one and only person I have yet encountered who has argued that's how it works. And, not to beat a dead horse here, but that's fine. If you enjoy playing it that way, then it's fantastic and don't let anyone tell you boo. But that's not how RAW or RAI or RA-anything-official works.


ETA:
Didn't Galt cut him with a razor, and get away with it?

When the police are that corrupt, not trusting them is reasonable behaviour even for Lawful characters.
IIRC, nobody cut Rambo, he escaped before they could shave him due to the PTSD flashbacks. Galt was choking him, though, and this is after they hosed him down, and after Mitch (i think? the one openly not-****ty deputy) tried to get them to stop because Rambo was clearly psychologically damaged and Galt flat-out said he didn't care and continued the abuse.

[Bartmanhomer]

Well, it's a good thing I got my popcorn ready to hear people arguing about alignment for such magnificent occasions. :biggrin:

[Melcar]

Now let's look at First Blood Rambo - specifically the final scene, where Rambo is baring his soul to Trautman.:

Rambo: Nothing is over! Nothing! You just don't turn it off! It wasn't my war! You asked me, I didn't ask you! And I did what I had to do to win! But somebody wouldn't let us win! And I come back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting. Calling me baby killer and all kinds of vile crap! Who are they to protest me, huh? Who are they? Unless they've been me and been there and know what the hell they're yelling about!
Trautman: It was a bad time for everyone, Rambo. It's all in the past now.
Rambo: For YOU! For me civilian life is nothing! In the field we had a code of honor, you watch my back, I watch yours. Back here there's nothing!
Trautman: You're the last of an elite group, don't end it like this.
Rambo: Back there I could fly a gunship, I could drive a tank, I was in charge of million dollar equipment, back here I can't even hold a job PARKING CARS!

Everything Rambo says is practically an example in action of how 3.5 describes it. Rambo did what the military told him - he was reliable, trustworthy. He disdains anyone who takes issue with what happened over there if they weren't there with him - he's closed-minded and judgemental. He was a perfect soldier but he can't integrate into civilian life, he can't just turn it off - he is not adaptable. He blames this on the fact that in the war, they had a code of honor, an implicit and unbroken trust between them which the civilian world lacks - he is openly lamenting that he's in a society in which people cannot depend on each other. All of his problems stem from the fact that he is not only Lawful, but specifically Lawful in a way that is incompatible with the world he now lives in.


This is very precise dissection of John J.'s alignment... I completely agree... IMO he's clearly Lawful Good!



Military conditioning is some kind of mind control.

This is some {scrubbed} right there! In no way is military conditioning mind-control or brainwash... {scrubbed}!

[Gruftzwerg]

So right off the bat, I'd like to apologize to everyone else for this wall of text.


I remember earlier you claiming that I was conflating Lawful and Good, but it really seems as if you're the one doing that here; you say that even if he starts as LG, his chaotic actions lead to him not only becoming Chaotic, but possibly Chaotic Neutral. A shift on the Law/Chaos axis has no bearing on the Good/Evil axis, yet you're claiming it does here with no justification.

...

I think we have a misunderstanding here about what extreme and fanatic means on the alignment axis.
Let me explain in %, maybe that helps more to avoid missunderstandings. On the lawful - chaotic axis, each option has occupies 33,3%.
Most alignment related decisions are not of a big deal and affect your alignment only slightly. But there are things who can have a bigger impact on changes. E.g. If you find something on the street and just keep it without trying to find the owner/bring it to a lost/found station whatsoever, it is not lawful in most countries. But it is still a lesser violation of law(ful) than stealing something.
So either a big alignment changing action is needed or a series of smaller violations.
Now, J. Rambo is disobeying the entire authority because of the evil Sheriff and that is a non lawful action. He could have tried to fight back within the rules/laws.

And as said, the change to C-N didn't happen in as single step. As said, I believe that his starting alignment is L-G or N-G in the first movie. But as soon as he meets the Sheriff his action become more and more chaotic. He didn't fight back the Sheriffs orders within the laws by getting a lawyer or going to some higher authorities. He just ignored his advice. And things get worse after getting imprisoned and when he escapes. All chaotic action, even if they are fueled by his trauma (the alignment axis doesn't care what happened in the past to excuse your actions).


This is very precise dissection of John J.'s alignment... I completely agree... IMO he's clearly Lawful Good!




This is some {scrubbed} right there! In no way is military conditioning mind-control or brainwash... {scrubbed}!

{scrubbed}
First Blood is a film that shows what happens if you take those brainwashing military drill methods to far.

[Peelee]

I think we have a misunderstanding here about what extreme and fanatic means on the alignment axis.
Let me explain in %, maybe that helps more to avoid missunderstandings. On the lawful - chaotic axis, each option has occupies 33,3%.
Most alignment related decisions are not of a big deal and affect your alignment only slightly. But there are things who can have a bigger impact on changes. E.g. If you find something on the street and just keep it without trying to find the owner/bring it to a lost/found station whatsoever, it is not lawful in most countries. But it is still a lesser violation of law(ful) than stealing something.
So either a big alignment changing action is needed or a series of smaller violations.
I'm completely with you so far.

Now, J. Rambo is disobeying the entire authority because of the evil Sheriff and that is a non lawful action. He could have tried to fight back within the rules/laws.
And you lost me. Because, again, Lawful does not require fighting back within the rules/laws. Lawful can mean that, but Lawful does not mean only that. Lawful characters can fight back outside of the rules/laws while still remaining Lawful. Again, this is in the rules as written, and is in the rules as intended. The only idea that it absolutely cannot happen is stemming from your own houseruled interpretation of the rules, which is fine, but is not relevant when talking about the standard rules as written.

Also I think this might be good to get before it boils over...
The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Discussion regarding real-world military training and brainwashing is getting much too close to real-world politics. Let's back off.

[Bartmanhomer]

*I'm eating my popcorn while everybody is arguing about alignment.*

Wow, this is getting good. If I may interject, Lawful means a person who follows the rules. Chaotic means a person who doesn't need to follow the rules. :smile:

[Peelee]

If I may interject, Lawful means a person who follows the rules. Chaotic means a person who doesn't need to follow the rules. :smile:

Again, that's not what those mean. That may be how you play it, which is perfectly fine, but that's not how the alignment is described in the PHB/SRD.

[Bartmanhomer]

Again, that's not what those mean. That may be how you play it, which is perfectly fine, but that's not how the alignment is described in the PHB/SRD.

This is what I got from easydamus website:

Law vs. Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

[Peelee]

This is what I got from easydamus website:

Law vs. Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

Yes, that's from the PHB and the online SRD. And I used that exact passage on Lawful to show why I argue for Rambo to be Lawful under those exact guidelines:
Now, let me try to show you why, according to the rules as written, Rambo qualifies as Lawful:

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Now let's look at First Blood Rambo - specifically the final scene, where Rambo is baring his soul to Trautman:

Rambo: Nothing is over! Nothing! You just don't turn it off! It wasn't my war! You asked me, I didn't ask you! And I did what I had to do to win! But somebody wouldn't let us win! And I come back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting. Calling me baby killer and all kinds of vile crap! Who are they to protest me, huh? Who are they? Unless they've been me and been there and know what the hell they're yelling about!
Trautman: It was a bad time for everyone, Rambo. It's all in the past now.
Rambo: For YOU! For me civilian life is nothing! In the field we had a code of honor, you watch my back, I watch yours. Back here there's nothing!
Trautman: You're the last of an elite group, don't end it like this.
Rambo: Back there I could fly a gunship, I could drive a tank, I was in charge of million dollar equipment, back here I can't even hold a job PARKING CARS!

Everything Rambo says is practically an example in action of how 3.5 describes it. Rambo did what the military told him - he was reliable, trustworthy. He disdains anyone who takes issue with what happened over there if they weren't there with him - he's closed-minded and judgemental. He was a perfect soldier but he can't integrate into civilian life, he can't just turn it off - he is not adaptable. He blames this on the fact that in the war, they had a code of honor, an implicit and unbroken trust between them which the civilian world lacks - he is openly lamenting that he's in a society in which people cannot depend on each other. All of his problems stem from the fact that he is not only Lawful, but specifically Lawful in a way that is incompatible with the world he now lives in.

[Bartmanhomer]

Yes, that's from the PHB and the online SRD. And I used that exact passage on Lawful to show why I argue for Rambo to be Lawful under those exact guidelines:

Oh, now I get it. I misinterpret the 3.5 alignment definition.

[AnimeTheCat]

There's a whole stratum of legitimate authority over the corrupt sheriff that Rambo is disobeying though. In the film, he's a soldier in the US military. Soldiers in the US Military swear an oath to support and defend the constitution of that nation against all enemies foreign and domestic. It is this same constitution that affords the existence of said corrupt sheriff, as well as the mechanisms to fix those corruptions. Every action that Rambo takes is an affront to the oath that he swore, and is apparently still living by. But let's proceed beyond that. Is the entire county's leadership corrupt? If no, he's not following any legitimate authority or rule of law. Again, having and following a code of ethics does not a lawful person make. A chaotic individual can have an equally strong moral or ethical code that they live by, and they aren't any less chaotic. You ended that quote of yours with the last bit:


He blames this on the fact that in the war, they had a code of honor, an implicit and unbroken trust between them which the civilian world lacks - he is openly lamenting that he's in a society in which people cannot depend on each other. All of his problems stem from the fact that he is not only Lawful, but specifically Lawful in a way that is incompatible with the world he now lives in.

But that's not an argument for lawfulness. You've read and quoted the PHB multiple times already. "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability."

I would argue that Guerrilla warfare is innately not honorable. It implies taking advantage of the enemy in dishonorable ways. That's not to say that Rambo isn't honorable in other ways, but the way that he fights is anything but honorable.

Trustworthiness I'll give him, though he doesn't shy away from telling white lies to hide the truth or his past, so he's no paragon of trustworthiness either.

Obedience to Authority. Simply no. He has no obedience to authority. It's not that he doesn't respect it when it's just, but when he finds it unjust (your entire quote from the movie) he feels he is not bound to ANY authority (not the state, federal, or constitutional authorities). He does what he thinks is right without regard for authority figures.

Reliability, who knows from what is presented in the movie. Judging by the fact that he talks about a system of interpersonal dependence, I would wager that he's fairly reliable, so I see no reason why he shouldn't be considered as such.

Aaaaand... he splits even. one leaning strictly lawful, one leaning strictly chaotic, and two split in and of themselves. Regardless of whether he sticks to his personal code of ethics or not, his actions simply do not overwhelmingly lean to wards lawful behavior, nor do they to chaotic behavior.

But I'll go a step further. Along in your quote you also mentioned the PHB's examples of lawful individual's failings. Those were, "close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability."

I'll go straight out and say that his inability to reintegrate in to society does strongly point towards the shortfalls of a lawful individual, however his reaction to being able to reintegrate is nothing short of a chaotic reaction (again, he blows up a freaking gas station! it's not like the system he opposed owned that gas station, he did it to dishonorably prove a point to his oppressor).

But things he isn't really is judgmental or closed-minded. He's relatively open minded, more so than many of the other characters at least. And he holds to tradition to an extent, but not so much that he automatically follows what is traditional of US citizens, which is to listen to police officers even if you disagree with them.

He really only falls in to one of the pitfalls of lawful behavior. While this could mean that he's simply aware of the potential pitfalls, and seeks to avoid them intentionally, this does seem to indicate that he leans towards a more neutral or chaotic mindset.

So let's take a look at Chaotic in the same way. From the PHB we have, "freedom, adaptability, and flexibility". Of which we see examples for and against them.

Freedom, very much this. All Rambo wants is to live freely and peacefully (that's more good than chaotic/lawful, but just saying). Rambo strongly holds to this ideal and actively disregards any attempt to stifle it (escaping captors, disregarding directions to leave town, etc). They encroach on his freedom, he pushes back. There's no question here.

Adaptability. In some ways, not at all. He can't reintegrate in to society following his return from the war. This isn't necessarily his fault, and I won't speculate any further on that. He simply can't do it. You showcase that very well in the movie quote you pulled. On the other hand, he's immensely adaptable in combat. He showcases many different forms of combat from traps to stealth to brute force.

Flexibility. Again, he can be, and he can be very much unyielding. In terms of his freedom, he's unyielding. In terms of his willingness to obey authority (legitimate or otherwise) not so much.

So we arrive at one leaning chaotic trait, and two split. but what about those chaotic shortfalls. well, we have, " recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility." Of those:

Recklessness - undeniably yes. it is without a doubt reckless to confront an entire national guard detachment. By the same token, he shows restraint as well, specifically in going out of his way to not kill as many people as possible.

Resentment toward legitimate authority - again, undeniably yes. There's no doubt that Rambo resents the legitimate authority of the corrupt sheriff, but he also shows resentment all the way to his former CO. This resentment isn't even really all that well founded either. It's neither his COs fault nor the Sheriff's fault that society isn't accepting of him or that he can't adapt to reintegrate. By the same token, he is still respectful towards them to an extent, showing restraint.

Arbitrary actions, not in the least. Rambo is as calculated as they come.

Irresponsibility, certainly. It's wholly irresponsible to cause immense property damage in a feud. A responsible individual would actively seek to minimize collateral damage. On the flip side, he is responsible enough to understand that nobody needs to die over the feud. I would say he leans more towards succumbing to this pitfall (he sends spikes through kids legs for goodness sakes...) but you butter your bread however you want.

So yeah... he's pretty split here too. And where does that leave us? A pretty much undeniably neutral person.

[Gruftzwerg]

I'm completely with you so far.

And you lost me. Because, again, Lawful does not require fighting back within the rules/laws. Lawful can mean that, but Lawful does not mean only that. Lawful characters can fight back outside of the rules/laws while still remaining Lawful. Again, this is in the rules as written, and is in the rules as intended. The only idea that it absolutely cannot happen is stemming from your own houseruled interpretation of the rules, which is fine, but is not relevant when talking about the standard rules as written.

Also I think this might be good to get before it boils over...
The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Discussion regarding real-world military training and brainwashing is getting much too close to real-world politics. Let's back off.

I have a kindly request to make here. Pls close this thread and lets discus sole the alignment topic in the other thread (later since I'm short on time atm).
Because imho it is not possible to talk about the alignment of a fictional character that is based on real world military history without it to becoming to "real world political" at all.